Seventh Circuit Threatens Attorney Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal

As observers of the legal world, we implore you: Don't
irritate the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or you could be slapped with
attorney sanctions and a scathing opinion that forever links your name with the
term "bungling attorney" on the Internet.

Cathleen Sambrano filed a discrimination charge against her
employer, the U.S. Navy, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). Because Sambrano was employed by a federal agency, EEOC had authority to
resolve the grievance rather than simply mediate. The EEOC found that Sambrano's
claim was unsupported.

Federal employees are entitled to a de novo decision by a
federal court, so Sambrano's attorney, A. Jun Joaquin, Jr., filed a complaint
repeating the administrative allegations. Joaquin failed to conduct discovery,
but filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that discovery was
unnecessary because the proceeding was an "appeal" from the EEOC's decision.

Judge Frank Easterbrook noted that Joaquin's proposition
was wrong because a suit is not an appeal. That wasn't Team Sambrano's only
mistake.

Joaquin's motion for judgment on the pleadings asserted
that the court should rule in Sambrano's favor because she was too ill to
participate in discovery. The district judge denied the motion.

The district judge dismissed Sambrano's case for want of
prosecution under Local Rule 41.1 after more than a year of
inaction. Joaquin responded with an "Ex Parte Motion to Vacate Dismissal." When
the motion was rejected, he filed an appeal in the Seventh Circuit, arguing in
an "almost unintelligible" brief that Local Rule 41.1 violates the Fifth
Amendment due process clause.

After listing Joaquin's procedural
sins, the court ordered Joaquin to show cause why he should not be fined for
"filing a frivolous appeal and violating Circuit Rule 30, and why he should not
be censured, suspended, or disbarred on account of his apparent inability to
practice competently and diligently."